someone's representing themself pro se and he stands up and admits that he is the shooter. however, i think what we're seeing is a rambling contrived justification that he believes in his mind he had to shoot because he had some greater good that he had to achieve or some form of defense of others. who knows though. when someone represents themselves pro se, anything can happen. >> and, monica, i think not only clearly is he admitting he does this, he had offered to plead guilty. the judge, the prosecution said, no, because they want the jury to ultimately convict him because had they accepted this guilty plea, the death penalty would have been off the table, correct? >> that's absolutely right. i think danny brings up a good point. when you get to a high level crime like this and the defendant chooses to represent themselves, i think it's really a form of arrogance, maybe some narcissism, and they usually have an agenda, some theories they want to put forth.